Parents should be obliged to explicitly request that their child be removed from the parts that offend their sensibilities. These students should be given OTHER health education curriculum.

This way parents get exactly what they want.

I strongly disagree.

Sex education should be fundamental knowledge for all students. We generally don't allow our students to opt out of math, english, history, or science, and we shouldn't allow them to opt out of sex education. We should consider sex education just as critical. Now, if someone has a religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate their religion under Title VII or one of the state anti-discrimination statutes, I'd be willing to allow limited exceptions in those cases. But I highly doubt it.

Sex education should be fundamental knowledge for all students. We generally don't allow our students to opt out of math, english, history, or science, and we shouldn't allow them to opt out of sex education. We should consider sex education just as critical. Now, if someone has a religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate their religion under Title VII or one of the state anti-discrimination statutes, I'd be willing to allow limited exceptions in those cases. But I highly doubt it.

Do you have any concern that someday schools will require your child to learn things that run counter to your values?

I couldn't care either way, really. You see, I lack a great deal of normal human emotional responses; I am fairly autistic in that regard. I lack empathy almost complete and unless I can intellectually attach onto some sort of response, I don't understand "normal" human connections to things. That is my fate.

Well, at least you are aware of it and articulate it honestly... though I find it appalling, I appreciate your candor. That's your admitted fate, but on balance I hope you maintain a level of respect those who have a much different fate. \

But I do have concerns that someday schools will require my children to learn things that are demonstrably untrue.

You mean like "condoms will protect you from everything" or "we know you're going to do it" or "it's none of your parents' business."

I know how you feel. This is why parents must always have the ability to teach sex ed, creationism/evolution, and other contentious topics in a way consistent with THEIR family's values.

I mean, it's not like it's a big deal. If my kids were ever in that situation, they'd just be on family business that day or two. Unless we are going for the Clockwork Orange treatment, the "out for the day" works just fine. That being said, our schools here in Texas do a good job with the topic. They explain human biology. They tend to stay away from the range of sexual behaviours that humans find themselves in, and the related value judgements that go along with them. It is indeed "just the facts" in most settings.

This thing with the Palin daughter is a mess. And what could have been done to avoid this mess? Duh... Abstinence. It works 100% of the times it is tried.

The failure rate for abstinence is absurdly high unless you define "tried" as in successfully applied. It's "tried" a hell of a lot of times unsuccessfully.

Even the Catholic Church has issues with celibacy with adult ordained men in the service of God. There's a number of practicing homosexuals in the ranks of priests. There are many priests that had children and then married. There are priests that didn't marry but had children. And of course, there were the pedophiles.

You really think the success rate will be higher among teens?

Or are you implying that Sarah Palin did not try the Abstinence method of avoiding teen pregnancy with her kids?

Quote:

Just look at the hell that descends when it isn't practiced, especially when there is political advantage to be made from an unwed teenage pregnancy.

Fuck political advantage. That's a smoke screen. Teenage pregnancy is simply BAD. It leads to closed options. It leads to abortion.

It should be avoided with education and the means to avoid it if the teens decide to have sex anyway. Teen sex is a bad idea. No education and no condoms is a worse idea.

Abstinence is like the Rythm method. What do you call people that practice the Rythm method? Parents. What do you call parents that subscribe to the Abstience method for their kids? Grandparents.

A parental notification law for minors was implimented in 2000, which will probably makes Texas's rank lower (although 2nd trimester abortions of 17 year olds waiting until they turned 18 to escape the notificaiton requirement increased)

the bottom line is this....if she is soo terrible a VP choice the obama camp should be singing and dancing...., if not they think this could hurt them
if mccain supporters are providing the most grief then it hurts the ticket, so where is the whining and crying coming from....who are bitching the most.....Hmmmmm seems like a strong VP choice

I disagree strongly. McCain clearly didn't vet her well enough. By vet I mean of course ask her about any and all sex she has had with her husband, and all the sex her children may or may not have had and who they had it with.

The best part about this is how when Edwards was cheating on his cancer striken wife the media didn't have the inclination to pursue it and left it up to the National Enquirer. Now they see a strong woman and the substantive questioning has to begin. By substantive I of course mean who is a slut or who is covering for the slut or who is a bad mom or professional for possibly rearing a slut and finally who didn't vet well enough to discover any and all possible sluttiness.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and your children's ears against the evils of comprehensive sex education also shields them from the benefits of comprehensive sex education. When those benefits are lost, teen pregnancy occurs.

Would you prefer that teenagers not have proper sex education, and 30% of them have sex without proper knowledge, or teach them sex education and 40% of them have sex with proper knowledge?

Seems like those opposing proper sex education hate sex more than they hate teen pregnancy.

Safe sex resulting in no pregnancy is better than ignorant sex resulting in pregnancy. Agreed?

Those who teach their kids abstinence only are much more likely to see a result like Sarah Palin. I guess the "utopia" they push where teens don't have sex is more important than reality.

Sex education should be fundamental knowledge for all students. We generally don't allow our students to opt out of math, english, history, or science, and we shouldn't allow them to opt out of sex education. We should consider sex education just as critical. Now, if someone has a religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate their religion under Title VII or one of the state anti-discrimination statutes, I'd be willing to allow limited exceptions in those cases. But I highly doubt it.

In this situation, the child is not being opted out of anything. The alternative curriculum covers physiology or something similar. The opt-alt is only with regard to teaching explicit contraceptive use, a part of sex-ed that is rare, and already separate but equal (boys and girls are separated for this part of the course, at least in SC). I was part of an experimental class that started sex-ed in SC. This was standard operating procedure. The thing is that the resulting decline of teenage pregnancies was significant and for a non-curricular course designed to teach children to be adults in a way their parents cannot, this formula is highly successful even with the opting out...

You have to ask yourself, Shawn, is the goal of sex-ed to educate? Or is it to socially engineer?

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Well, at least you are aware of it and articulate it honestly... though I find it appalling, I appreciate your candor. That's your admitted fate, but on balance I hope you maintain a level of respect those who have a much different fate. \

Appalling?

Eh?

Do you think it is appropriate to find it appalling? I was more or less born this way and I have a strong intellectual ethical sense.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

I disagree strongly. McCain clearly didn't vet her well enough. By vet I mean of course ask her about any and all sex she has had with her husband, and all the sex her children may or may not have had and who they had it with.

The best part about this is how when Edwards was cheating on his cancer striken wife the media didn't have the inclination to pursue it and left it up to the National Enquirer. Now they see a strong woman and the substantive questioning has to begin. By substantive I of course mean who is a slut or who is covering for the slut or who is a bad mom or professional for possibly rearing a slut and finally who didn't vet well enough to discover any and all possible sluttiness.

the liberals want
1.her off the ticket, she is a major threat....how dare a strong woman NOT be a democrat, hilliary was savior 2
2. her to have aborted her newest child, because a child is a "punishment" and how can any woman tackle being a mom, hold a job, be responsible.....except of course hilliary, without abortion....OMG!

I dont think that a parent is responsible of all the acts of her/his child, but as a father I would consider as a personal failure if my daughter at the age of 17 will be pregnant.
17 especially in our century is not the right age for being a parent. At 17 you are a teenager, and you have better things to do, than raising a child.
I don't say she has to abort, because it's her choice, but I say that 17 is too young in 2008.

the liberals want
1.her off the ticket, she is a major threat....how dare a strong woman NOT be a democrat, hilliary was savior 2
2. her to have aborted her newest child, because a child is a "punishment" and how can any woman tackle being a mom, hold a job, be responsible.....except of course hilliary, without abortion....OMG!

Nope.

This is a non-story. Obama made his statement and forcefully (he raised his voice) told his people AND the media to back off. Did the media back off? No.

Why?

Because sex sells. Teenage sex sells bigger. Seemingly hypocritical actions of the teenage daughter of a candidate (any candidate -- just because Palin is female is (mostly) a non-issue to the press) for vice president demonstrating the failures of a moralistic sex-education regime they support unhesitatingly is just icing on the cake. The only reason Palin's gender is being brought into this is that it is clear to a lot that it may be difficult for her to be the supportive parent her family needs right now and be the vice president, but honestly, I don't care about that if she wants the job this personal decision shouldn't stand in her way.

The media sells sex. The media sells sex to every single one of us.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

THIS is your problematic term. What you deem "proper" may not be consistent with what my family considers "proper."

To put your particular strawman to rest... there is no one on this board that I've seen saying that abstinence-only and/or "ignore sex ed altogether" are the only way to go. Least of all me. I only have two issues... one, that parents have a right to exempt their kids from it and two, that whatever is presented is information related to biological facts.

Ours? Since when did any of my kids become yours (or anyone else's) as well?

That's part of the deal, sslarson. It's not just your kids... it applies to your paycheck and assets as well. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs. After all, they know better than you how to care for both your kids and your money.

ok media likes sex, but they also don't like responsibilty, or accountability, palin speaks to many regular families that must deal with these difficult issues, but read her statement, overwhelmingly positive, and what most parents should say, she is being a rolemodel for american families, and the media/ liberals hates this, and wants obama's/ hilliary approach...let the governement raise your mistakes, we don't need families, dad's, even mom's, "we'll be your daddy, mommy and nanny.....
the big problem, for liberals/ and obama democrats, is that palin is handling it well enough to get the attention of many HILLIARY supporters, oh no not that, yes and it will grow.
the media/ liberals are angry it can't attack more, but they run the risk of hurting themselves, so they will try another tack. the bottom line is a strong woman has to be liberal, democrat, single child, 3 abortions, and at least a divorce, or cheating husband to show they have the "badge of courage" and thus is the foundation of "leadership" ...see i'm a victim boohoo

This is a non-story. Obama made his statement and forcefully (he raised his voice) told his people and the media to back off. Did they? No.

Why?

Because sex sells. Teenage sex sells bigger. Seemingly hypocritical actions of the teenage daughter of a candidate (any candidate -- just because Palin is female is (mostly) a non-issue to the press) for vice president demonstrating the failures of a moralistic sex-education regime they support unhesitatingly is just icing on the cake. The only reason Palin's gender is being brought into this is that it is clear to a lot that it may be difficult for her to be the supportive parent her family needs right now and be the vice president, but honestly, I don't care about that if she wants the job this personal decision shouldn't stand in her way.

The media sells sex. The media sells sex to every single one of us.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

100% correct.

The national media is concerned about one thing and one thing only: ratings

ok media likes sex, but they also don't like responsibilty, or accountability, palin speaks to many regular families that must deal with these difficult issues, but read her statement, overwhelmingly positive, and what most parents should say, she is being a rolemodel for american families, and the media/ liberals hates this, and wants obama's/ hilliary approach...let the governement raise your mistakes, we don't need families, dad's, even mom's, "we'll be your daddy, mommy and nanny.....
the big problem, for liberals/ and obama democrats, is that palin is handling it well enough to get the attention of many HILLIARY supporters, oh no not that, yes and it will grow.
the media/ liberals are angry it can't attack more, but they run the risk of hurting themselves, so they will try another tack. the bottom line is a strong woman has to be liberal, democrat, single child, 3 abortions, and at least a divorce, or cheating husband to show they have the "badge of courage" and thus is the foundation of "leadership" ...see i'm a victim boohoo

Wow. Talk about sexist.

I honestly don't think your playbook is up to date. Go listen to Obama's speech from the DNC convention.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Do you think it is appropriate to find it appalling? I was more or less born this way and I have a strong intellectual ethical sense.

Actually... I find it appalling too. I'm not saying it's your fault. It's just that lack of empathy is one of the worst kinds of mental illness, and it can be far more dangerous than things like schizophrenia. It leads to conditions like Narcissistic Personality Disorder in it's most common form, and Psychopathy in the extreme.

Unfortunately, people with these conditions almost always refuse psychiatric help because they don't consider that their lack of empathy is a problem.

It doesn't matter how strong your intellectual ethical sense is. You need to be able to look at things from others' perspective and be able to judge how they will react emotionally to your actions in order to spare people from a lot of emotional pain and trauma.

THIS is your problematic term. What you deem "proper" may not be consistent with what my family considers "proper."

To put your particular strawman to rest... there is no one on this board that I've seen saying that abstinence-only and/or "ignore sex ed altogether" are the only way to go. Least of all me. I only have two issues... one, that parents have a right to exempt their kids from it and two, that whatever is presented is information related to biological facts.

By "proper" I mean complete. Comprehensive. Not hiding the necessary facts and details a teen needs to know to avoid pregnancy and disease if they "don't listen to the Governor" and have sex anyway.

And I repeat... if you think that what is presented is restricted to biological facts, then you don't know what's being taught in sex-ed class. There are plenty of classes related to psychological and sociological facts as well. There are plenty of classes related to the importance of reducing abortion. There are even classes related to economics.

If what you're insinuating is the religious angle ("God doesn't like it") then to include that would be up to the parents, the church, and extra-curriculars.

[edit] Oh... rereading what you're saying... you mean that it should be restricted to biological facts.

I have presented things... psychology, sociology, economics, etc. that I'm sure you agree are important. What exactly is it that you object to? Proper condom use? Where to seek help? Where to buy contraceptives?

A teen who has decided to have sex is going to have sex. Would you rather they go into that in ignorance, or with knowledge? If they don't know where to buy condoms and not to be embarrassed about it, then there's a higher likelihood that they will not use them. If they have never been taught how to use them then there is a higher likelihood that they use them incorrectly. These are facts that they need in case abstinence fails, which it does, frequently.

Actually... I find it appalling too. I'm not saying it's your fault. It's just that lack of empathy is one of the worst kinds of mental illness, and it can be far more dangerous than things like schizophrenia. It leads to conditions like Narcissistic Personality Disorder in it's most common form, and Psychopathy in the extreme.

Unfortunately, people with these conditions almost always refuse psychiatric help because they don't consider that their lack of empathy is a problem.

It doesn't matter how strong your intellectual ethical sense is. You need to be able to look at things from others' perspective and be able to judge how they will react emotionally to your actions in order to spare people from a lot of emotional pain and trauma.

Thanks for your concern. I have been to psychiatrists, and they see no problem with my approach to life.

I don't completely lack empathy -- just a significant part of it, as opposed to feeling someone else's pain I can recognize that they are hurting and act accordingly etc. I am actually acutely socially aware -- I can recognize people's emotional states before most others simply by observing them, voice, actions, posture.

At the same time, I have no need for holding back my opinions which of course, sometimes, strains social relationships. That said, once people get to know me, the fact that I am brutally honest is a benefit.

Edit:

Just to be sure. NPD isn't caused by lack of empathy. Lack of empathy is caused by NPD.

I may have an ego, but I don't think I am god's gift to anything.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Thanks for your concern. I have been to psychiatrists, and they see no problem with my approach to life.

I don't completely lack empathy -- just a significant part of it, as opposed to feeling someone else's pain I can recognize that they are hurting and act accordingly etc. I am actually acutely socially aware -- I can recognize people's emotional states before most others simply by observing them, voice, actions, posture.

At the same time, I have no need for holding back my opinions which of course, sometimes, strains social relationships. That said, once people get to know me, the fact that I am brutally honest is a benefit.

Edit:

Just to be sure. NPD isn't caused by lack of empathy. Lack of empathy is caused by NPD.

I may have an ego, but I don't think I am god's gift to anything.

Ok... my apologies for the knee-jerk response. I can see that you do wish to address the problem and are intelligent enough to find an alternative to empathy.

As you may guess, I've had some bad experiences, and have looked into this issue extensively.

Thanks for your concern. I have been to psychiatrists, and they see no problem with my approach to life.

I don't completely lack empathy -- just a significant part of it, as opposed to feeling someone else's pain I can recognize that they are hurting and act accordingly etc. I am actually acutely socially aware -- I can recognize people's emotional states before most others simply by observing them, voice, actions, posture.

At the same time, I have no need for holding back my opinions which of course, sometimes, strains social relationships. That said, once people get to know me, the fact that I am brutally honest is a benefit.

Edit:

Just to be sure. NPD isn't caused by lack of empathy. Lack of empathy is caused by NPD.

I may have an ego, but I don't think I am god's gift to anything.

Ha, yeah you have a touch of antisocial personality. Other people have a touch of OCD, or depression, or whatever. It's all a continuum. IMO, some of the most successful people in fields like politics and business and even science have a bit of antisocial personality.

tonton - have you read Hare's book Without Conscience? It's the best popular book on the issue.

And by the way, from Palin to abortion, this thread is now about hardeehar's psychology.

I dont think that a parent is responsible of all the acts of her/his child, but as a father I would consider as a personal failure if my daughter at the age of 17 will be pregnant.
17 especially in our century is not the right age for being a parent. At 17 you are a teenager, and you have better things to do, than raising a child.
I don't say she has to abort, because it's her choice, but I say that 17 is too young in 2008.

I think you make a valid point but I would suggest that you not consider it a personal failure if such a thing or something like it were to materialize.

This past Sunday my pastor gave a message which addresses this very issue in many ways.

I think any and all here should listen to his message and see the perspective he shares. I know I was impressed with the perspective which I never thought about before hearing his approach to difficult children making questionable choices.